Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:08 pm, "Private" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in

oups.com...







As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
most completely idiotic thing I had to read.
On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
energy that is needed to suck off, using the
wings (you know, those little things that
protude out the side of airplanes).
I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude.
See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
from my shoe on your ass.
Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground
impact by pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down
there a bit longer than they did, using the air under them to
better advantage and giving themselves the needed time to regain
angle of attack and smooth airflow as they attempted a recovery.
But because they had been taught that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was
the killer, they recovered trying to save altitude, when in
reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE ALTITUDE
CORRECTLY....and save the airplane. Toward this goal, I strongly
encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in stall recovery. This
doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean that to recover
the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at low
altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power.
The FAA requires power. I want the student to see the difference
and at the same time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF
ATTACK that saves your butt. The strong lesson here is that you
USE altitude......you don't try to minimize it at the expense of
angle of attack.
Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
focus on AoA.
I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
what are going to do?
Regards
Ken
Ken,
With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another
thread. I am enclosing it here for your convenience and
consideration.

"Private" wrote in message

...

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message

om...
I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
when I'm broke, works every time!
Ken
Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your
head before
posting.
I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just
can't resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
Happy landings,
To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give
your head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to
consider whether you really wished to make the fact public.
Happy landings,

If I were you, I'd ****-off and read.
You're swinging at screw-balls...
Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
Get a ****in life, crack a book.

Best Regards
Ken
xxxx

Just for the record, and on the off chance that there might just be
one person on Usenet who needs to be informed of this, please be
advised that regardless of what this idiot says and when he uses my
name in his posts; I am in NO way even remotely involved with this
character in any way whatsoever.



It should be obvious that Ken always puts the "S" between "Ken" and
"Tucker" to emphasize to everyone that he is a total ****HEAD!